Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 4990162" data-attributes="member: 115">I think you're missing the point (admittedly half-assed at this point) I am making.  Honestly, I think this is more of a fundamental difference in the way you and I see the show.  I don't mean this as an attack; I mean it as a way of informing the discussion.  That is to say, knowing how you've reacted to episodes, and how I have, that we have drastically distant takes on shows.  I've noted, for example, that BrooklynKnight and I have vastly differing opinions.  Our (BK and my) opinions are so different in fact, that I can tell if I will like something or not by negating his opinion.  I've noticed a similar effect with you; we do not think the same.  Anyway, the point I'm making with this spiel is that it's not accusatory; I think we just take different things from the show.  It's the wonder of modernist thought.I'm not talking about the idea that there need to be a tidy bow wrapped around the concept of the episode.  What I'm talking about it is that the show raises concepts and questions, but doesn't bother to follow through on the discussion.  What follows is a in-depth dissection of that.The major thing we see in this episode, with regards to the concept of switching bodies, is Young using Telford's body to have sex with his ex (ex-sex <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />).  That's an interesting ethical question - is it ethical to use someone else's body for pleasure.  Note that we see this question echoed with Chloe (drinking), Eli (food), and Telford (command).  That's an interesting question.  In fact, I dare say that is the most interesting question the show has raised so far.  However, what the show fails to do is further discuss that question, and it fails to posit an answer to that question.  Some people might not be bothered by that; it's not an invalid opinion.  However, some people think that the purpose of sci-fi (and fantasy) is to use fantastical situations to address moral and ethical questions.  Regardless of your opinion, that is what is happening here - an ethical question is being raised.I have to stop at this point and explain the concept of "discussion" and "answering" as I'm using them here.  By discussion, I mean that the ethical question needs to be explored.  Most commonly, this would be through the concept of consequence.  However, I accept that this is a story arc, and that consequence is not immediate.  Yet I disagree consequence is impossible to provide; in fact, it's my viewpoint the vast majority of shows don't utilize consequence.  That's not really applicable to the discussion; I will assume that is not an issue here.  How then can discussion be obtained?  Well, in this case, the answer was provided - the characters involved know what is going on in the switch.  That provides an avenue of discussion that was barely touched upon with Young's comment the first time.  Yet we don't see that, and that's part of my problem with the show.  One of the central tenets of crafting a story is "show, don't tell."  Yet, we don't see Telford being pissed off, or Young.  We don't see Chloe's swap responding to being <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-faced.  We barely see Young (or Scott/Rush/TJ) responding to Telford's abduction, even in the B-plot.  Showing those reactions is a large part of the discussion.  Through the characters, we see the points of view, the different answers to the question.  We did not get that here.That leads me to the "answer."  At some point, the story dictates that an answer be made to the ethical question.  From a story point, the answer was that Young chose to restrict Earth's access to the stones.  Yet, that's not really an answer to the ethical question raised.  It infers an answer - that abduction is not okay, but drunkenness/eating*/sex is.  Yet, that isn't explicitly or implicitly stated.  Like the discussion, the answer is reflected in the characters' points of view.  We don't ever see Young/Destiny/Earth make a decision; by extension, we never actually get an answer to the ethical question.  We can only assume one.  Wait, but isn't that moral/ethical ambiguity part of the show?  Yes, of course.  In fact, that's part of the draw - maybe there isn't a correct answer.  In which case, the answer is that there is no answer.  Again, that's something that isn't shown.  In fact, the episode specifically denies that answer, in having Young deny Earth unlimited access to the device.  That very point suggests that the episode is forming an answer, that it is positing the existence of a correct answer.  That is redoubled by the lack of consequence, when O'Neill allows the "home trips."  Basically, it's answer without consequence.  That's what I mean by an answer - that there is an answer posited by the show, and that it is somewhat correct, and that there is consequence to that answer being correct.So, coming back to the episode, we see an ethical question being raised.  Specifically, what is the acceptable use of another person's body?  What is glossed over, egregiously, is the discussion and the answer to that question.  That is to say, we never get any possible answers through the characters involved in the story.  We don't get any viewpoints, no analysis, no sides of which to take.  Since we don't get possible answers, the show can't suggest the existence of a correct answer.  Yet, at the end of the episode, the writing suggests that there is such a correct answer, in having Young resist Earth.  We don't know what that answer is, because there's been no discussion of that issue.  That cheapens the episode.  Why bother asking those ethical questions if you're not prepared to discuss them?  Furthermore, why bother to ask and discuss those questions if you're not prepared to make a statement?That's something that BSG did - it would raise ethical questions and discuss them, and answer them.  For example, the ban on abortion in the fleet.  We're presented with the question, we're giving viewpoints (through Alosha, Roslin, and others), and an answer is given (the reproduction of human life trumps individual freedoms in the case of genocide).  They did that in one episode.  That's what SGU should be striving for, if they want to be compared to BSG.That's why I thought the episode was crap.  It raised a question, and didn't even bother to discuss it, let alone answer it.  Was the episode a total wash?  No, there were some interesting character bits (Chloe, Eli, Rush), some interesting stories, and I can't say I was disgusted with the end scene on Earth, all things aside.  It moved the story forward.  Was the episode at all successful?  Absolutely not, if you're interested in the ethical questions.  And really, what is supposed to set SGU apart from, say, CSI, if those questions don't matter?  Is CSI an interesting show to watch?  I think so, though the point is debatable.  Does it really offer anything?  I'd say no.So what is really comes down to is whether I, or anyone, thinks that SGU could ask, discuss, and answer those questions.  I think at this point it should be obvious my answer is that SGU can and should do that.  That is, if that is the metric by which SGU wishes to be judged.  By comparison to BSG, that is the metric that is being invoked, fair or not.  And by that metric, tonight's show was garbage.* The concept of Eli's ethical question is subtle.  We see Eli comment how he gets girls because of his looks in the club.  Yet, we also get Eli asking for all sorts of treats from his mother.  One precludes the other.  The ethical questions are then: 1) is it ethical for Eli (or anyone) to treat the host body like they treat their own; and 2) Is Eli in fact responsible for his own condition (in this case, extreme loss), or is that a problem with society?</blockquote>

Verification